Twittering with 'Gen. J.C. Christian': Thank God for foolish enemies!

OK, so I noticed this morning that a gay liberal blogger was sending Tweets trying to get one of my advertisers to cancel. The fact that his target was the much-criticized Pamela Anderson Extreme Video" ad was kind of surprising.

Little did I suspect that the silicone-boob-laden ad -- which I'd never bothered to click -- links to a PETA site attacking Kentucky Fried Chicken for alleged violations of animal rights. (Admit it: Every bucket of extra-crispy is a chicken-hating act of genocide.)

Let's evaluate the purely capitalistic angle for a minute: Internet advertisers pay for eyeballs. If PETA wants people to click through to see their anti-KFC site, would their money be best spent on:

• The blog that invented Rule 5 Sunday?

or

• Some gay left-winger's site?

The way I see it, PETA is making a shrewd move here. Nobody at a gay left-wing blog is interested in seeing a Pamela Anderson nude video and, as far as the animal-rights message is concerned, targeting a liberal audience would just be preaching to the converted. (Whatever private deviance "Gen. J.C. Christian" may indulge, no one has ever accused him of being a commercial poultry producer.)

God gives us enemies for a reason. So far I've been blessed with a non-stop parade of fools, and I suppose I shouldn't have been surprised that this white gay liberal was pushing the "raaaaacism" smear at his PETA pals. (Fact: Hitler was a vegetarian.)

About three years ago, I had an e-mail exchange with this same blogger after he'd made the mistake of repeating an erroneous assertion from a Michelangelo Signorile column. He'd had the decency to correct his mistake, which lets me know that even if he's a total gay wackjob, he's at least cognizant that he can't make up his own facts. Therefore, when I noticed him attacking me this morning, I sent him a direct message via Twitter:

Criticizing me is fair game, JC. Trying to organize a smear-based advertising boycott? Not so much. Chill.

To which J.C. replied:

Don't care about your other advertisers, but PETA should be supporting liberal blogs.

Ah! So now we see the selfish greed behind all this. Repeating the Charles Johnson "white supremacist blogger" meme was just J.C.'s way of trying to leverage a few bucks of advertising out of my hands and into his own.

Capitalism is the Great Uniter, and once my gay liberal antagonist tipped his hand -- hey, I Write For Money, too -- I knew I'd found a friend. So I fired off a quick string of direct messages:

LOL. Oh, great -- now I'm accused of being a SPECIESIST!

In point of fact, some of my conservative readers have complained about that PETA ad. Also, my wife is SDA and (mostly) vegetarian.

In case you haven't figured it out yet, I realized that these raaaaacist smears were God's way of reminding me to have a sense of humor.

When you start taking politics too seriously, it'll drive ya nuts. So I'm just trying to relax, have a good time and earn a living.

The smear artists wouldn't bother attacking me if I was actually a Robert Byrd-type Klan Kleagle. There's no advantage in that, see? But if they can, by endless repetition, convince you that the World's Most Fun-Loving Blogger is in fact a secret agent for The Flemish Menace -- deprive me of readership by getting me de-linked by the conservative blogosphere -- then they'll have achieved something.

Which is why I don't play the "deny, denounce and repudiate" game that Republican idiots have been playing for the past 10 or 15 years. I know who I am, and my friends know who I am, and since I'm not who Charles Johnson says I am, I just laugh at his cheap lies and smack him around from time to time, as it suits my mood. His jealous rage is entirely impotent. From the standpoint of the convservative blogosphere, Mad King Charles is now as inert as argon.

The Left's smear artists are either bullies or dupes, or perhaps both. Once you figure out how they roll, and start throwing their bovine excrement back in their faces, they'll eventually learn to leave you alone.

Notice that Michelle Malkin doesn't fear them at all. I was in Denver when Michelle braved that crazy mob scene at the Mint, where Charlie Martin and Jim Hoft gallantly defended her from physical assault led by the unhinged 9/11 Truther Alex Jones. (Take a bow, Charlie.) When Michelle got back to the Founding Bloggers/PJM headquarters, she was in no way daunted, but indeed more determined than ever to expose The Mendacity Of Hope.

Having failed to silence or intimidate Malkin, now the Left deploys front-page Ransom Note smears in The Washington Post -- the only way she'll ever be mentioned in the Post, which would never publish her popular syndicated column.

Gutless liars and bullies. Thank God for such enemies!

UPDATE: "Springtime for Potok and Irony."

UPDATE II: VIDEO EXPOSE: Colonel Sanders and the Hate That's Finger-Lickin' Good!

The Worst Cause in the WorldRakes in $34 Million a Year

Stylistically, the protesters favored the familiar "alternative" look: white guys in dredlocks, Army fatigues and grimy t-shirts, chicks in tanktops and ripped, saggy jeans. Piercing seemed to be universal and unisex. One girl I talked to had both nostrils, one eyebrow and her tongue pierced.
And then there was the smell. . . . I don’t know if this neglect of personal hygiene was a political statement on the part of the animal-rights activists, or if maybe they had spent the previous few nights camping somewhere without access to showers, but they genuinely reeked. You could smell them from 50 feet away.
-- Robert Stacy McCain, March 2000

When spotted owls sign a petition, or the Orangutang Caucus organizes a protest march, I'll be willing to consider the possibility that animals have "rights." Meanwhile, I refuse to recognize the moral supremacy of smelly protesters with nose rings and neck tattoos. However, neither their body odor nor the illogic of their rhetoric can keep these crackpots from raking in the capitalist moohlah:

To some Americans, PETA may seem like a caring organization. Sure, you may say, they are a bit extreme -- but it's in defense of animals, after all. . . .
But have you stopped to consider just why PETA picks certain targets to go after? Maybe it makes sense that they've gone after McDonalds and KFC -- until you wonder: Why McDonald's and not Wendy's, and why KFC and not Popeye's? . . .
And why go after MasterCard instead of Visa or American Express -- or the Gap instead of ... whoever else sells Gap-ish stuff?The answer, of course, is money. PETA took in more than $34 million in 2008. Much of the money comes through legal kickbacks and grants, via their "partners" . . . (Emphasis added.)

There's more where that came from, plus here's something interesting from Andrew Breitbart's Big Hollywood:

While PETA has increasingly become adept at generating mainstream media attention, according to PetaKillsAnimals.com, PETA found homes for less than one out of every three hundred animals in 2008, and they killed 95 percent of the dogs and cats in their care last year . . .

More of that, too. What PETA does, you see, is exploit human sympathy for animals, and then turn that sympathy into cash -- cash that actually kills Fluffy the Cat and Bowser the Dog.

Kind of like ObamaCare, in some ways.